About your Search

20130423
20130423
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
debate, he fled with his tail between his legs. senator lindsey graham and senator talked about obama not try him as an enemy combatants. it was said to see him go, he was a fine figure and a state senator, isn't it? >> al a high state legislature is much more sophisticated than we saw here today. >> let's talk about lindsey graham. sang the government should have left dzhokhar tsarnaev as an enemy combat and, at least on the table as a possibility. >> it is not permissible under the law. you cannot treat an american citizen who is accused of committing an american crime against mostly american citizens in boston as an enemy combatants. it would turn our country -- >> it has never happened before. >> into martial law. the supreme court struck that down and american citizens were charged with crimes and this fellow is being charged with an ordinary crime that anybody could be charged with the team made a bomb to kill his mother-in-law. it does not require any allegation of terrorism. the idea we can deny and trial by jury, speedy trial, all of the things in the constitution and the bil
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
understand senator lindsey graham correctly, is what he was proposing is by making him an enemy combatant, that he would be turned over to the military to be questioned for a period, 30 days, and whatever he said during that 30 days could not be used against him when he gets turned back over for a federal trial. i think that's what he said. you know, which is different than what i think some people thought he meant originally. but anyway, i also thought it was interesting that the defendant is, according to the magistrate, and we have a copy of the transcript from the court hearing today, is that he is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. they did talk to him a little bit. i guess they might have got some information out of him the last day or so, would you expect? >> you know, i think what we have to do here, greta, as you are pointing out, is to separate the whole notion of what would be admissible in a criminal trial. i think there's very little doubt that he will be found guilty in a criminal trial; that he very likely will receive the death penalty. there's a lot of evidence out the
is one way to achieve something but, what we're trying to achieve, what lindsey graham, and kelly ayotte are trying to achieve, that is the most important thing. our priority here should be, i think, not to punish these perpetrators. not to prosecute them. not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose right now should be, we have somebody in custody who may know of other terrorist plots of other terrorist cells, who has information that may save lives and prevent future bombings. the question is, can we get that information from him, or are we going to do i think what now has been done, tell him he has the right to remain silent and we're going to remain ignorant of the information he has even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future. this is a decision we've made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we're going to remain ignorant and we're not going, we're going to let him have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, aside from all other issues. we're remaining ignorant by choice. >> host: here are headlines. "washington post" sa
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
on in this hearing right now between lindsey graham and janet napolitano. we will get into it more later. the gist of it is why didn't we know about tamerlan's trip to russia, given the fact that he had been -- he had been, you know, asked questions already by the fbi, and at one point janet napolitano in this hearing today suggested, well he pinged on the way out. we picked him up on the way out. mike levine sailed he was on a very large watch list not a terror watch list that doesn't have a whole lot of significance. the big thing here, bob is are we doing what we need to be doing in terms of keeping track of people who have been on the radar in this country, or are we throwing up our hands and saying we can't find anything on them so we are done with that. >> this is the third time the fbi has let people slip through their fingers. they interviewed the guy before he went to russia. then he went to russia in an area near chechnya and he was there for six months. at that point it would seem to me it would trigger something, somewhere along the line. martha: you would think. >> this guy has been a
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)